Arguing The Church Is At Fault For The Sins Of Its Members

[KevinG]

BY taught such people should be blood atoned.

 

I'm not so sure a predator being put to death is a bad thing.  

 

I have not taken that law into my own hands in the case of those who victimized my wife and some of my daughters however.  I also follow the principle that vengancve is the Lord's not mine.

[stemelbow]

Demonstrate how the application of the law of chastity (Gospel principle) taught by a loving parent (Gospel principle) would cause a gay person to commit suicide.

That's my point, Kevin. It's not enough that an LDS gay person killed himself. We must prove he killed himself in part, at least, because of the teachings of the church. But somehow your position of the Church not contributing at all to a suicide is true because someone can't prove harm by the teachings of the Church. And I'd hate to call out specific instances here because, as it turns out, though I've known a couple of gay LDS who have killed themselves I don't feel it appropriate to bring them here so people can question whether they were loved by their families, were unfaithful, were mentally unstable, or whatever.

I think it good the Church has softened it's language when it comes to gay people. it used to be much harsher, for sure. The softening was done for a reason. And I'm sure a big impact of why change the language were the stories of families who suffered from the harshness.

But again, we'll never really get anywhere on this because you will say it was no big deal, or something.

[KevinG]

I could see how someone following the recent teaching that some people can "overcome" same-sex attraction would inevitably lose hope and commit suicide.

 

Yes a non-doctrinal and false teaching held by many therapists inside and outside the church for decades was harmful, and done away with.

 

I agree that it was false and should have been done away with.

 

Dehlin's research already showed that unconditional love (doctrine) paired with counselling a gay child has no destructive impact on suicide rates.

 

So should we alter the law of chastity, or encourage parents to love their children unconditionally?

[jkwilliams]

So is the solution for wrongs committed by priesthood holders to throw away the teachings we have, or better instruct fathers to be worthy priesthood holders?  (I'm open to a third alternative if you have one).

 

I agree we have cultural issues we need to constantly and consistently correct.  

 

However the solution of making men more responsible in their priesthood, is not to excuse them from their priesthood responsibilities and give it to the women instead.  That approach of taking away the role of fathers because some fathers were abusive or neglectful has been irreparably harmful to men and families in the general culture.

I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said. I'm all for improvement. I just don't care for the glib dismissal of past teachings and practices that have hurt people. I can pinpoint the exact moment of my life when I finally internalized that I was never going to be good enough. It was the culmination of years of being taught to feel shame and guilt not only for what I did but for what I didn't do. It just happened that a general authority put into words what I had already internalized over many years. What's interesting to me is that several people I know who were in that meeting reported the same loss of hope.

So, I can say, as everyone seems to be saying here, that man's talk was anomalous and incorrect and should be discarded. Or, I can recognize that his talk was not given in a vacuum, that it was just another in a long series of such teachings that happened to be more blunt and direct than others. I'm glad I have let go of that awful feeling, though it took me 20 years to do so, but I do not forget that teaching or what it did to me and others.

[KevinG]

But again, we'll never really get anywhere on this because you will say it was no big deal, or something.

 Don't try to put words in my mouth.

 

It is a sensitive topic, and you have NO CLUE what I have done for and with gay friends and my children who have struggled with the law of chastity.

 

Now back to blaming the church for harm in the case where obeying the doctrines and practices would have prevented that harm, which is what the OP is about...

Edited October 27, 2015 by KevinG

[KevinG]

I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said. I'm all for improvement. I just don't care for the glib dismissal of past teachings and practices that have hurt people. 

 

In that case what you said has nothing to do with the OP.

 

I neither glibly dismiss what was said in the past, or discourage improvement and becoming more aligned with God's eternal laws.

 

What I am arguing against is using bad examples of following the law, as arguments against the law.  (IE: Abusive priesthood holders as evidence that the way we ordain men to the priesthood is wrong).

[jkwilliams]

In that case what you said has nothing to do with the OP.

 

I neither glibly dismiss what was said in the past, or discourage improvement and becoming more aligned with God's eternal laws.

 

What I am arguing against is using bad examples of following the law, as arguments against the law.  (IE: Abusive priesthood holders as evidence that the way we ordain men to the priesthood is wrong).

Again, I think if "the law" creates predictable opportunities (and perhaps even encouragement) for bad behavior, then it's fine to use such predictable behaviors as arguments against the law/teaching/practice. As I said, the overemphasis on shame and guilt has had predictable results. The solution is to put shame and guilt in perspective and stop trying to use guilt and shame as motivators.

[stemelbow]

Don't try to put words in my mouth.

 

It is a sensitive topic, and you have NO CLUE what I have done for and with gay friends and my children who have struggled with the law of chastity.

 

Now back to blaming the church for harm in the case where obeying the doctrines and practices would have prevented that harm, which is what the OP is about...

Fair. I didn't mean to put words into your mouth--that was poorly worded. But, it was odd that you mentioned Dehlin and that gay LDS people are less likely to kill themselves if their family loves and supports them (a very obvious point, if you think about it).

It's simple really. If an LDS gay person kills himself because he can't recognize the teaching that he can't be gay with what he feels inside, we can't say the Church's teaching contributed to the suicide because _____

Fill in the blank, please.

[KevinG]

Again, I think if "the law" creates predictable opportunities (and perhaps even encouragement) for bad behavior, then it's fine to use such predictable behaviors as arguments against the law/teaching/practice. As I said, the overemphasis on shame and guilt has had predictable results. The solution is to put shame and guilt in perspective and stop trying to use guilt and shame as motivators.

 

We are not too far apart.  

 

How would you modify the law of chastity (as taught today) and teachings on homosexuality to benefit gays and people in general, and minimize harm to all involved temporally and eternally?

 

For starters, real research into LDS member behavior and gay suicide rates has already given us a huge clue into balancing our laws in an inspired and doctrinal way:  Teach "love one another" and "forgiveness" outweighs enforcing other's obedience to the law.  I see a trend towards this and would encourage us to continue down that path.

[KevinG]

Fair. I didn't mean to put words into your mouth--that was poorly worded. But, it was odd that you mentioned Dehlin and that gay LDS people are less likely to kill themselves if their family loves and supports them (a very obvious point, if you think about it).

It's simple really. If an LDS gay person kills himself because he can't recognize the teaching that he can't be gay with what he feels inside, we can't say the Church's teaching contributed to the suicide because _____

Fill in the blank, please.

 

Fun game.

 

If an LDS gay person condemns himself  because he can't recognize the earthly teaching that gay is a perfectly acceptable lifestyle choice, we can't say society's teaching contributed to the damnation because _____>

 

But not very useful.

 

Should we really reclassify sexual sins in order to make people feel better about committing them?

[Buckeye]

Just today, Elder Ballard said at the world conference of families that people should not "shun" those of different beliefs. (https://twitter.com/hashtag/wcf9?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) Recent conference addresses have counseled parents to not reject their children chose to openly live their homosexuality or who stop believing church teachings. It's hard to believe that our leaders would be making this statements if they weren't needed. Obviously, some LDS parents have not been doing what they should.

[KevinG]

Just today, Elder Ballard said at the world conference of families that people should not "shun" those of different beliefs. (https://twitter.com/hashtag/wcf9?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) Recent conference addresses have counseled parents to not reject their children chose to openly live their homosexuality or who stop believing church teachings. It's hard to believe that our leaders would be making this statements if they weren't needed. Obviously, some LDS parents have not been doing what they should.

 

It is needed.  And I am all for accelerating those teachings.

 

The OP is about arguing against doctrines and teachings using examples of people breaking those teachings.

 

The whole "Church teachings contribute to gay suicide" position is  not exactly an example of how doctrine harms people as much as an example of how misuse or unbalanced use of doctrines harms people.

Edited October 27, 2015 by KevinG

[jkwilliams]

We are not too far apart.  

 

How would you modify the law of chastity (as taught today) and teachings on homosexuality to benefit gays and people in general, and minimize harm to all involved temporally and eternally?

 

For starters, real research into LDS member behavior and gay suicide rates has already given us a huge clue into balancing our laws in an inspired and doctrinal way:  Teach "love one another" and "forgiveness" outweighs enforcing other's obedience to the law.  I see a trend towards this and would encourage us to continue down that path.

I haven't said anything about changing the law of chastity (which presumably includes same-sex behavior). Obviously, that is not my call. As I said, if I could change one thing, it would be the overemphasis on shame and guilt, and the use of such as motivators to improve behavior. It doesn't do much good, IMO, and it can do some real damage. The incident I was talking about wasn't about sexual sin at all; it was about our general inability to ever be "good enough." Maybe it's a generational thing, but I have found that a lot of people around my age grew up with that crushing sense of guilt and inadequacy. As I said, it didn't hit critical mass with me until my mission, but it was always there.

[stemelbow]

Fun game.

 

If an LDS gay person condemns himself  because he can't recognize the earthly teaching that gay is a perfectly acceptable lifestyle choice, we can't say society's teaching contributed to the damnation because _____>

 

But not very useful.

 

Should we really reclassify sexual sins in order to make people feel better about committing them?

Why does that matter? We're not talking about what is and what is not sin. We're talking about if the Church has contributed in some way or another to the harm of someone. It seems like yes it has.

Now it appears that you may say, (not trying to put words in your mouth) well it is sin for two people who are gay to have sex so the teachings and message this person who committed suicide could not reconcile is not the problem. But, again. We don't know. Perhaps it would have been much better if this person had sex with someone of the same sex and lived out his life to the fullest. Perhaps he would have been exalted.

[SmileyMcGee]

An eternal standard optimally.

Your point is why I have asked for concrete examples and not just hypothetical. It is very easy to critique someone using a hypothetical bad. It is much harder to be intellectually honest and critique a practice or principle using real examples, and discussing the cost vs. benefit of adjusting or eliminating practices.

You're not getting the point. Concrete examples won't suffice since your morality is subjective.

ie, whatever you call an eternal standard is only what you think is an eternal standard and what you think is an eternal standard likely differs (large or small) from what others believe that standard to be. And to debate morality is to attempt to hit a target that either doesn't exist or is constantly moving.

IMO, the professing of absolute morality is one of the most pervasive (and comical and frustrating) self delusions performed by humans.

Edited October 27, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[KevinG]

I haven't said anything about changing the law of chastity (which presumably includes same-sex behavior). Obviously, that is not my call. As I said, if I could change one thing, it would be the overemphasis on shame and guilt, and the use of such as motivators to improve behavior. It doesn't do much good, IMO, and it can do some real damage. The incident I was talking about wasn't about sexual sin at all; it was about our general inability to ever be "good enough." Maybe it's a generational thing, but I have found that a lot of people around my age grew up with that crushing sense of guilt and inadequacy. As I said, it didn't hit critical mass with me until my mission, but it was always there.

 

Right.  No argument with your point- but the problem you describe is lack of emphasis on mercy, charity, and forgiveness.  Not an example of a Gospel law actually causing harm.

 

You are far afield of my OP which talks about people assigning harm to the law that was caused by disobedience to that law.

[KevinG]

Problem is that if you are a human, you don't have the ability to perceive things without them being subjected to your bias. Moral absolutes, if they actually exist, will constantly elude us.

ie, whatever you call an eternal standard is only what you think is an eternal standard and what you think is an eternal standard likely differs (large or small) from what others believe that standard to be. And to debate morality is to attempt to hit a target that either doesn't exist or constantly moving.

IMO, the professing of absolute morality is one of the most pervasive (and comical and frustrating) self delusions performed by humans.

 

We certainly don't own it here.  Absolute truth is in its own sphere where God has placed it.  (D&C 93)  Our understanding is not perfect but "through a glass darkly".

 

But where does that leave us?  If someone advocates changing or removing a practice of their religion, then a fair discussion of cost/benefit of that change in terms of temporal and eternal consequence is fair.  

 

What is unfair, and the topic of this thread, is the practice of condemning a law using an example of not following that law.

[jkwilliams]

Right.  No argument with your point- but the problem you describe is lack of emphasis on mercy, charity, and forgiveness.  Not an example of a Gospel law actually causing harm.

 

You are far afield of my OP which talks about people assigning harm to the law that was caused by disobedience to that law.

Hmmmm. I thought I was addressing the idea that programs/doctrines/teachings intended to prevent bad behavior often inadvertently spawn such bad behavior. I gave the example of church leaders using shame and guilt as motivators of good behavior, but when someone is overwhelmed by guilt and shame, they often lose hope, and ironically that may lead them to give up, give in to the bad behavior, or, worst of all, lose hope and kill themselves.

As for your specific question, the church is going to teach the law of chastity, as I don't think that's going to change anytime soon. I would hope, however, that it would be taught in context with the Atonement and repentance and without pushing guilt and shame to change behavior.

[KevinG]

Why does that matter? We're not talking about what is and what is not sin. We're talking about if the Church has contributed in some way or another to the harm of someone. It seems like yes it has.

Now it appears that you may say, (not trying to put words in your mouth) well it is sin for two people who are gay to have sex so the teachings and message this person who committed suicide could not reconcile is not the problem. But, again. We don't know. Perhaps it would have been much better if this person had sex with someone of the same sex and lived out his life to the fullest. Perhaps he would have been exalted.

 

It matters because obedience to one of the laws of the Gospel may be much less harmful than throwing said law out, both temporally and eternally.

 

I keep hearing you say the church could be to blame for suicides, but you have yet to demonstrate that point with anything coming close to facts or research.

 

I've already shared the fact that when shown love, even gay children of Saints have no greater tendency towards suicide than the general population.

 

If social acceptance of gays were to reduce suicide rates we would have seen those rates come down drastically in the general population as society accepts and celebrates sexual diversity.  But the facts are stubborn things and much more complex than social disapproval causes suicide.  (Please read the whole article and don't cherry pick one point) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_among_LGBT_youth

 

(WHICH IS STILL DIFFERENT FROM THE TOPIC WHICH IS ABOUT BLAMING GOSPEL LAWS FOR THE HARM CAUSED BY NOT FOLLOWING GOSPEL LAWS!)

Edited October 27, 2015 by KevinG

[KevinG]

Hmmmm. I thought I was addressing the idea that programs/doctrines/teachings intended to prevent bad behavior often inadvertently spawn such bad behavior. 

 

OK- that's the other side of the same coin.  Misplaced blame of another name.  

 

We should definitely address programs that have unintended negative consequences.  But we should be very careful in how we go about accepting/rejecting church practices and programs based on cost/benefit.  Not in reaction to criticism from those who refused to be obedient then blame the programs for the natural consequences of their actions.  Again a slightly different topic than the one I started but I can't expect it not to go down a rabbit trail after 4 pages...

[jkwilliams]

It matters because obedience to one of the laws of the Gospel may be much less harmful than throwing said law out, both temporally and eternally.

 

I keep hearing you say the church could be to blame for suicides, but you have yet to demonstrate that point with anything coming close to facts or research.

 

I've already shared the fact that when shown love, even gay children of Saints have no greater tendency towards suicide than the general population.

 

If social acceptance of gays were to reduce suicide rates we would have seen those rates come down drastically in the general population as society accepts and celebrates sexual diversity.  But the facts are stubborn things and much more complex than social disapproval causes suicide.  (Please read the whole article and don't cherry pick one point) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_among_LGBT_youth

When I was growing up, we were taught by a prophet that it was blasphemy to say that gay people were "born that way." No, we were taught that, with prayer and obedience and the spirit, gay church members could overcome their desires and raise righteous families. I personally know of more than a few very unhappy marriages and even more suicides related to that pernicious teaching. It's not just the law of chastity, by the way, it's the understanding that the plan of salvation requires heterosexual union, the corollary being that homosexuality is not just wrong but has no place in the plan of salvation and is antithetical to God's plan for us.

And, as long as we're talking about it, it's not just that gay and lesbian members are not to have sexual relationships with members of the same sex, they are not to have any kind of physical affection with members of the same sex. Unmarried heterosexual members can kiss, hug, and hold hands, but gay members can't. How is a lifetime devoid of any physical affection except for with people you aren't attracted to a recipe for a healthy life?

[KevinG]

When I was growing up, we were taught by a prophet that it was blasphemy to say that gay people were "born that way." No, we were taught that, with prayer and obedience and the spirit, gay church members could overcome their desires and raise righteous families. I personally know of more than a few very unhappy marriages and even more suicides related to that pernicious teaching. It's not just the law of chastity, by the way, it's the understanding that the plan of salvation requires heterosexual union, the corollary being that homosexuality is not just wrong but has no place in the plan of salvation and is antithetical to God's plan for us.

And, as long as we're talking about it, it's not just that gay and lesbian members are not to have sexual relationships with members of the same sex, they are not to have any kind of physical affection with members of the same sex. Unmarried heterosexual members can kiss, hug, and hold hands, but gay members can't. How is a lifetime devoid of any physical affection except for with people you aren't attracted to a recipe for a healthy life?

 

Arguing that nature or nurture are solely responsible for who we are and how we act is a fools argument no matter what side you advocate for.

 

Arguing that the teachings on sexuality the church used to have were always right is for fools too.  I have never argued inerrancy or as you put it "blithely" dismissed a former teaching as being inconsequential.  I am happy our current teachings are more in line with eternal gospel principles of love, charity, and mercy than our former teachings on the subject.

 

Practices that forbid homosexuals from acting in ways non-married heterosexuals can are wrong, and if I'm not mistaken folk practices not official teachings of the church (you can prove me wrong there by showing me that in writing somewhere on an LDS site).

 

Over-focusing on physical affection as a source of happiness and satisfaction in relationships is unhealthy even for heterosexuals, and the cause of much unhappiness when it comes to love and chastity.

 

Please note for the record:  I did not cite anything about homosexuality in my opening statement on not blaming the church for the sins of its members.

 

But please do continue to make this yet another gay thread.  It's what I live for.

Edited October 27, 2015 by KevinG

[jkwilliams]

Arguing that nature or nurture are solely responsible for who we are and how we act is a fools argument no matter what side you advocate for.

 

Arguing that the teachings on sexuality the church used to have were always right is for fools too.  I have never argued inerrancy or as you put it "blithely" dismissed a former teaching as being inconsequential.

 

Practices that forbid homosexuals from acting in ways non-married heterosexuals can are wrong, and if I'm not mistaken folk practices not official teachings of the church (you can prove me wrong there by showing me that in writing somewhere on an LDS site).

 

Please note for the record:  I did not cite anything about homosexuality in my opening statement on not blaming the church for the sins of its members.

 

But please do continue to make this yet another gay thread.  It's what I live for.

Never mind. You asked me about homosexuality and the law of chastity, even though I was talking about guilt and shame and teachings about never being good enough, not homosexuality. Now you're saying I derailed this thread into one about homosexuality. This is surreal.

[KevinG]

Never mind. You asked me about homosexuality and the law of chastity, even though I was talking about guilt and shame and teachings about never being good enough, not homosexuality. Now you're saying I derailed this thread into one about homosexuality. This is surreal.

 

Stemmelbow brought up homosexuality as a teaching of the church that is harmful in post #26.  You ran with it as an example.

 

I did not ask you about homosexuality and the law of chastity.  I addressed why the law of chastity is not endemically harmful.  You proposed that teaching it wrongly could lead to misplaced guilt.  I agreed and said that is another find example of blaming the church (institution) for people in the church (individuals) doing the wrong thing.

 

What is surreal is the tendency for homosexuality to take over any contemporary discussion about the Gospel. 

[jkwilliams]

Stemmelbow brought up homosexuality as a teaching of the church that is harmful in post #26.  You ran with it as an example.

 

I did not ask you about homosexuality and the law of chastity.  I addressed why the law of chastity is not endemically harmful.  You proposed that teaching it wrongly could lead to misplaced guilt.  I agreed and said that is another find example of blaming the church (institution) for people in the church (individuals) doing the wrong thing.

 

What is surreal is the tendency for homosexuality to take over any contemporary discussion about the Gospel.

You asked me for my suggestions about the law of chastity and homosexuality. I wouldn't have said anything about it if you hadn't asked.

You said specifically:

How would you modify the law of chastity (as taught today) and teachings on homosexuality to benefit gays and people in general, and minimize harm to all involved temporally and eternally?

Edited October 27, 2015 by jkwilliams